Screening for Type 1 Diabetes Risk in Newborns: The Freder1k Pilot Study in Saxony.

An increased risk for type 1 diabetes can be identified using genetic and immune markers. The Freder1k study introduces genetic testing for type 1 diabetes risk within the context of the newborn screening in order to identify newborns with a high risk to develop type 1 diabetes for follow-up testing of early stage type 1 diabetes and for primary prevention trials. Consent for research-based genetic testing of type 1 diabetes risk is obtained with newborn screening. Increased risk is assessed using three single nucleotide polymorphisms for HLA DRB1*03 (DR3), HLA DRB1*04 (DR4), HLA DQB1*0302 (DQ8) alleles, and defined as 1. an HLA DR3/DR4-DQ8 or DR4-DQ8/DR4-DQ8 genotype or 2. an HLA DR4-DQ8 haplotype and a first-degree family history of type 1 diabetes. Families of infants with increased risk are asked to participate in follow-up visits at infant age 6 months, 2 years, and 4 years for autoantibody testing and early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. After 8 months, the screening rate has reached 181 per week, with 63% coverage of newborns within Freder1k-clinics and 24% of all registered births in Saxony. Of 4178 screened, 2.6% were identified to have an increased risk, and around 80% of eligible infants were recruited to follow-up. Psychological assessment of eligible families is ongoing with none of 31 families demonstrating signs of excessive burden associated with knowledge of type 1 diabetes risk. This pilot study has shown that it is feasible to perform genetic risk testing for childhood disease within the context of newborn screening programs.

A product of immunoreactive trypsinogen and pancreatitis-associated protein as second-tier strategy in cystic fibrosis newborn screening.

BACKGROUND: In cystic fibrosis newborn screening (CFNBS), immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) and pancreatitis-associated protein (PAP) can be used as screening parameters. We evaluated the IRT×PAP product as second-tier parameter in CFNBS in newborns with elevated IRT. METHODS: Data on 410,111 screened newborns including 78 patients with classical cystic fibrosis (CF) from two European centers were retrospectively analyzed by discrimination analysis to identify a screening protocol with optimal cutoffs. We also studied differences in PAP measurement methods and the association of IRT and PAP with age. RESULTS: PAP values differed systematically between fluorometric and photometric assays. The IRT×PAP product showed better discrimination for classical CF than PAP only as second-tier screening parameter (p<0.001). In CF patients, IRT decreased while PAP values remained high over years. In newborns without CF, IRT decreased after birth over weeks while PAP increased within days. CONCLUSIONS: The IRT×PAP product performs well as second-tier cutoff parameter for CFNBS. Screening quality parameters depend on the analytic method and on age at blood collection.

Five years of experience with biochemical cystic fibrosis newborn screening based on IRT/PAP in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from recent studies suggests that IRT/PAP protocols may be successfully used as a purely biochemical newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) that does not require genetic screening. However, the experience with the performance of different IRT/PAP protocols remains limited. In this study, we evaluated the performance of IRT/PAP-based CF-NBS used in two German regions between 2008 and 2013 in a large cohort. METHODS: In both regions slightly different IRT/PAP protocols were used to screen newborns for CF. In contrast to the original IRT/PAP protocol published by Sarles et al., both German protocols contained an IRT-dependent safety net strategy (CF-NBS positive, if IRT≥99.9th percentile). Positive rating of the screening result led to confirmatory diagnostics using sweat chloride testing and clinical assessment. FINDINGS: A total of 328,181 newborns were tested with IRT/PAP in Germany within 5 years. 639 of these newborns (0.19%) were tested positive, and 60 infants were diagnosed with CF leading to a sensitivity of 0.968 and a PPV (positive predictive value) of 0.097. Compared to IRT/DNA protocols, the PPV of IRT/PAP is lower, but PAP used as second tier test has the advantage of a lower detection rate of healthy carriers and CF patients with equivocal results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results obtained in a large cohort of ∼330,000 newborns support the use of a purely biochemical IRT/PAP protocol as an acceptable alternative when genetic CF-NBS has to be avoided.

Comparison of different IRT-PAP protocols to screen newborns for cystic fibrosis in three central European populations.

BACKGROUND: In recent years different IRT/PAP protocols have been evaluated, but the individual performance remains unclear. To optimize the IRT/PAP strategy we compared protocols from three regional CF newborn screening centers (Heidelberg, Dresden, and Prague). METHODS: We evaluated the effect of elevating the IRT-cut-off from 50 to 65 µg/l (~97.5th to ~99.0th percentile), the need of a failsafe protocol (FS, IRT ≥ 99.9th percentile) and the relative performance using either two IRT-dependent PAP-cut-offs or one PAP-cut-off. FINDINGS: Elevation of the IRT cut-off to 65 µg/l (~99.0th percentile) increased the PPV significantly (Dresden: 0.065 vs. 0.080, p < 0.0001, Prague: 0.052 vs. 0.074, p < 0.0001) without reducing sensitivity. All three IRT/PAP protocols showed a trend towards a higher sensitivity with FS than without and when using one PAP-cut-off instead of two IRT-dependent PAP-cut-offs. CONCLUSIONS: For best performance we suggest an IRT/PAP protocol with an IRT-cut-off close to the 99.0th percentile, FS, and a single PAP-cut-off.